Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

So... now the Americans are a trustworthy source? You might want to make up your mind about that.

(Never mind that that quote merely claims that they had stopped their program for the time being, which is entirely plausible. Doesn't mean they can't start up it again if we let them get away with it.)

Really? Just Americans? Last time I checked the sanctions were just a *tad* wider than that.

And, gee, last time I checked *I* wasn't an American, either. Just because you're idiot enough to believe Iranian propaganda doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

Sure, if we could bully the US into getting rid of its nuclear weapons that would be a good idea, in my opinion, though North Korea, Pakistan, China, and Russia would come first on my list. But for the time being it isn't practical to much more about any of them. We *may* however be able to keep Iran from getting them.

Where do you get this crap about Iran being "crazy"? Fox News? Israeli and U.S. government propaganda?

General knowledge.

To be fair, upon going back over my collection of news reports I was surprised how few of them were about Iran as opposed to other Islamic nations. On the other hand I specifically claimed that Iran has a reputation for being batshit crazy rather than that it actually is batshit crazy. Scott Adams once pointed out that if you analyzed Iran's actions rather than their words they didn't seem nearly as insane.

Even so, there were some relevant items about Iran - and none about Jordon, though a more thorough search might turn up more.

There's also Iran's own constitution. The first five articles are all about how Islamic Iran is. In other words, they're a theocracy and don't even try to hide it. The preamble even says "... with the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others."

The Supreme Leader has considerable power and is chosen entirely on religious grounds. In other words, he's chosen precisely because he's batshit crazy.

Can you really be so sure that one day the Supreme Leader won't decide to nuke Israel, counting on God to protect Iran from Israel's counterstrike?

I'm not sure that Jordan has blown up any teenagers in Mexico recently. We're comparing Jordan and Iran, remember, not Iran and anybody else.

I'm not claiming, mind you, that Jordan is necessarily really any more trustworthy or any less batshit crazy than Iran. I know little about Jordan, so it's entirely plausible that the difference is entirely PR.

The rule is written very broadly. It basically covers *anything* that improves performance for the other party, no matter how it is implemented.

However, it turns out that the rule's scope is defined later on in the document to explicitly exclude interconnections. So it won't stop peering, which is good, on the other hand it also wouldn't apply directly to the Netflix wrangle.

It might still apply to in-network hosting, I'm not sure. I think you could argue that was new traffic, which just happens to replace the old traffic. Or that it's a form of interconnection. I'll let the lawyers figure that one out, or at least someone who has read the entire document.:-)

The Wikipedia article calls it "internet transit" and distinguishes it from "peering" as follows: "Transit is distinct from peering, in which only traffic between the two ISPs and their downstream customers is exchanged and neither ISP can see upstream routes over the peering connection." That more or less matches my original understanding. Mind you, there are no citations.

The rule disallowing paid prioritization is very broad, and does *not* have an exception for normal network management. (They actually call out explicitly that this rule does not have that exception, unlike the first two.)

However, clause 30 appears to restrict the scope of the rule to explicitly exclude peering. So that's OK after all.